TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usually low price. The impugned order observed that no proper response was given by the appellant and therefore the system sent the Bill of Entry to the Port Assessment Group. The Appraising officer at the Port Assessment Group, therefore to give further opportunity to the appellant and raised the following query : "As per as RMS instruction, it is requested to comply the value justification of the subject bill of entry when compare with the value of BE No. 2455445 dt. 22- Jan-21 of location INNSA 1, where the Unit Price (Invoice Value) of referred item is 2.85 USD per KGs and total quantity is 7950 KGs. And value of BE No. 9692766 dt. 24- Nov, 20 of location INNSA 1 Inv. No. 1 item no. 1, where the unit price (invoice value) of referred item is 2.8 USD per Kgs and total quantity is 2514.5 Kgs." 2.2 In response the appellant pointed out that involved smaller quantity as compared to the quantity import by the appellant. The Appraising Officer gave one more opportunity to appellant to justify the lower declared quantity as compared to the contemporaneous import. The appellant were requested for personal hearing, in response the appellant sought the following from the Revenue: "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recovered from NIDB. Therefore, the assessing officer by applying Rule 4(3) CVR, 2007, re-assessed the Bill of entry and enhanced the value mentioned in the table given in para 2.4 above at USD 2.1/- kg. 2.6 It has been argued that in the appeal memorandum that the copies of Bill of Entry No. 2198984 dated 01.01.2021 and 2198928 dated 01.01.2021 and invoices thereof were provided. It has been argued that it is mandatory to provide the copies of bills of entry and invoice which are relied upon for the purpose of re-determination of value under Rule 4(5) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. 2.7 It has been argued that it is mandatory for Assessing officer to pass speaking order within 15 days and failure to pass such order makes the order liable to be set aside, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Cal. Sigma Power Products Pvt. Ltd- 2017 350 ELT 510. 2.8 It has been argued that enhancement of transaction value is against provisions of Section 14 customs Act and Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. It has been argued that no reason has been assigned for rejecting the declared transaction value and the rule under which the same re-determination has not been mentioned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r goods, therefore the FAG has given query through EDI module as under:- "Please give amplified declaration w.r.t. nature of pile fabric; knitted. crocheted; width, make, source & end-use of fabric; % of electrometric yarn; warp knit; dyeing, printing & bleaching etc. Declared value of your consignment i.e. USD 1.2/kg which is lower than contemporaneous import of identical/ similar goods which is USD 1.85/kg CIF. Evidences bill of entry 8065835 dtd. 03.07.2020, 8065808 dtd. 03.07.2020, 8128505 dtd. 10.07.2020,7752927 dtd. 26.05.2020. The quantity in all cases is comparable with your imported quantity and all import are from China. Hence, under the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 12, you are being intimated the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared. Please state why the declared value of the goods should not be rejected and re-determined under customs valuation rules, 2007 read with section 14 of the customs act, 1962. You are requested to submit evidences like payment details, maufacturers'irrelevent invoice, negotiation details, email exchanges etc to substantiate your declared value. Clearly submit whether you agree for value enhancement." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble to assess as proper reply not received from importer". 6. The Appraising officer at the PAG (Local Port) has noticed and observed that the importer has not made any response to the second query raised by the FAG, therefore to give a further opportunity to the importer, they raised a query through EDI as "Please refer to your reply vide which you have submitted that bill of entry numbers provided without giving its import locations & hard copy as contemporaneous evidence is irrelevant & it is of more than six months old?. In this regard as per RMS instruction, it is requested to comply the value justification of the subject bill of entry when compare with the value of BE No. 2455445 dt. 22- Jan-21 of location INNSA1, where the Unit Price (Invoice value) of referred item is 2.85 USD per KGS and total quantity is 7950 KGs and value of BE No 9692766 dt. 24-Nov,20 of location INNSA 1 Inv. No. 1 item no. 1, where the unit price (invoice value) of referred item is 2.8 USD per Kgs and total quantity is 2514.5 Kgs". 7. In response to the above query the importer has replied as "Please refer your second query raised on 25.02.2021 to BoE 2720081 dtd. 11.02.2021. Bill of Entry referr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Entry bearing no. 2198984 and 2198928 both dated, 01.01.2021, for the same item, same country of origin, similar commercial quantity taken from the NIDB and the video link as requested, were provided to the importer through e-mail given by them and fixed the date of PH at 05.00PM on 02.03.2021. 4.1 It is noticed that personal hearing was attended by the appellant. It is noticed that no where in the act or rules is there any requirement that the bill of entry and the invoice in their contemporaneous import needs to provide. It is seen that the NIDB data is based on actual documents and it is computerised data. The data given to the appellant was extracted form NIDB data and therefore the demand of providing actual bill of entry and invoices is not required to be fulfilled. 4.2 Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 are reproduced as follows: "(4) Where it is found on verification, examination or testing of the goods or otherwise that the self-assessment is not done correctly, the proper officer may, without prejudice to any other action which may be taken under this Act, re assess the duty leviable on such goods." It is seen that once the assessing officer reaches a conclu....